Supreme Court of South Carolina Court Cases

Search
  1. Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown (1999)

    James M. Futch (Futch) won a jury verdict, as well as treble damages and attorney's fees, in an action he brought pursuant to the state Payment of Wages Act. Futch lost on appeal when the Court of Appeals reversed the trial judge's denial of McAllister Towing's (Employer's) directed verdict motion. We granted Futch's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision. We reverse.


    Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina Docket: 24976
  2. Townes Assoc., Ltd. v. City of Greenville (1976)

    Townes Associates, Ltd. (plaintiff) brought two separate actions against the City of Greenville (City), alleging that fees were owed it for architectural services on two separate construction projects. From rulings of the lower court in favor of the plaintiff in each action, the City has appealed.


    Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina Docket: 20155
  3. I'ON, LLC v. Town of Mt. Pleasant (2000)

    This case raises the novel issue of whether zoning by initiative and referendum is allowed in South Carolina. Respondent I'On, L.L.C. (Developer) brought a declaratory judgment action challenging the validity of a proposed voter referendum on a zoning matter in the Town of Mt. Pleasant (Town). The circuit judge struck down the proposed referendum after a non-jury trial. James A. Renneker and Henry G. Thomas, IV (appellants), who participated in a citizens' effort to block the project, appeal. [...]

    Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina Docket: 25048
  4. State v. Torrence (1991)

    Attorney Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Asst. Attys. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., and William Edgar Salter, III, Columbia, and Sol. Donald V. Myers, Lexington, for respondent.


    Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina Docket: 23403
  5. Lark v. Bi-Lo, Inc. (1981)

    This Workmen's Compensation case raises two questions for consideration: (1) whether or not the Administrative Procedures Act (Section 1-23-310 et seq., South Carolina Code of Laws, 1976) requires a change in the scope of judicial review of factual determinations by the Industrial Commission; and (2) the sufficiency of the evidence in this case to support the Commission's award in favor of the respondent-claimant. The appeal is from an order of the lower court affirming the award of the [...]

    Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina Docket: 21410
  6. Hodges v. Rainey (2000)

    Chief Legal Counsel Jim O. Stuckey, II, of the Office of the Governor, of Columbia, and Susan Taylor Wall, of Nexsen, Pruet, Jacobs, Pollard & Robinson, LLP, of Charleston, for petitioner.


    Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina Docket: 25149
  7. State v. Wilson (2001)

    Attorney General Charles M. Condon, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Robert E. Bogan, and Senior Assistant Attorney General Charles H. Richardson, all of Columbia; and Solicitor C. Kelly Jackson, of Sumter, for petitioner/respondent.


    Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina Docket: 25284
  8. Wilder Corp. v. Wilke (1998)

    This case involves the foreclosure of a bond for title. Respondent, Wilder Corporation ("Seller"), brought this foreclosure action against petitioners, Klaus and Rita Wilke ("Buyer"), as a result of Buyer's indebtedness arising out of the sale of property. The master-in-equity found in favor of Buyer. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. Buyer appeals the Court of Appeals' decision. We affirm.


    Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina Docket: 24770
  9. Tupper v. Dorchester County (1997)

    These are cross-appeals from an order of the circuit court granting Respondents-Appellants (The Tuppers) summary judgment and holding they had an easement over property owned by Appellant-Respondent (Suggs). The court issued an injunction requiring Suggs to remove an inground swimming pool built over the easement. The Court also granted summary judgment to Respondent, Town of Summerville, finding that it was not liable to the Tuppers for having granted a swimming pool permit to Suggs. We affirm [...]

    Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina Docket: 24643
  10. Cherry v. State (1989)

    Laverne Holiday Cherry was convicted of first degree burglary and received a twenty year sentence. Cherry filed an application for Post-Conviction Relief (PCR) on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. Following an evidentiary hearing, his application was denied. We granted Cherry's Petition for Certiorari to review the findings of the PCR court pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 50(9).


    Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina Docket: 23110
  11. Steinke v. SC DEPT. OF LABOR, LICENSING (1999)

    Mike and Mary Steinke, the parents and personal representatives of the estate of Zachary Steinke, and Linda Nash Given, the mother and personal representative of the estate of Michael Nash (Respondents), brought wrongful death actions against the South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation (Department). The jury awarded the statutory beneficiaries of each teenager $1 million in actual damages. Nash's award was reduced to $900,000 because the jury concluded he was ten percent [...]

    Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina Docket: 24999
  12. State v. Baccus (2006)

    Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Assistant Attorney General Derrick K. McFarland, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Edgar L. Clements, III, of Florence, for Respondent.


    Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina Docket: 26094
  13. Baughman v. American Tel. & Tel. Co. (1991)

    These actions were originally commenced by 271 plaintiffs claiming personal injury, property damage, and nuisance caused by pollution from a refinery operated by Respondent AT&T Nassau Metals Corporation (Nassau). Presently, 187 plaintiffs (Plaintiffs) remain in the case. They appeal orders granting Nassau's motions for partial summary judgment and denying their motion to set aside prior partial summary judgments.


    Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina Docket: 23399
  14. Clark v. Cantrell (2000)

    John Kevin Clark and Maggie Lee Anderson sued Annette Rochelle Cantrell for injuries and damages they incurred as a result of an automobile accident. A jury awarded actual and punitive damages to Clark and Anderson.[1] The Court of Appeals affirmed the verdicts and awards. Clark v. Cantrell, 332 S.C. 433, 504 S.E.2d 605 (Ct.App.1998). We granted Cantrell's petition for a writ of certiorari to review that decision. We affirm as modified.


    Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina Docket: 25088
  15. State v. Kelsey (1998)

    Attorney General Charles Molony Condon, Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald J. Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General Robert F. Daley, Jr., Columbia; and Solicitor Donald V. Myers, Lexington, for respondent.


    Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina Docket: 24801
  16. Fleming v. Rose (2002)

    This Court granted Boykin Rose's ("Rose") petition for certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' opinion in Fleming v. Rose, 338 S.C. 524, 526 S.E.2d 732 (Ct.App.2000). Rose argues the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court's grant of summary judgment on the cause of action for libel.


    Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina Docket: 25500
  17. Glasscock v. Glasscock (1991)

    The total marital estate in this case is valued at nearly $2.8 million. In the final decree, the award to respondent (Wife), including alimony and her equitable share in marital assets, was approximately $1.6 million dollars. At the hearing on Wife's request for attorney's fees, Wife's attorney submitted affidavits that his fee based on an hourly rate totalled $51,998.75. The hourly rates were: $125 per hour for his services; $75 per hour for his associate's services; $150 per hour for both [...]

    Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina Docket: 23364
  18. Edm v. Tam (1992)

    This is an action for separate support and maintenance. Appellant (Husband) appeals the denial of his counterclaim for an annulment and the award of alimony and attorney's fees to respondent (Wife). We affirm in part and reverse in part.


    Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina Docket: 23603
  19. State v. Gaster (2002)

    Attorney General Charles M. Condon, Deputy Attorney General Treva Ashworth, Senior Assistant Attorney General Kenneth P. Woodington, and Assistant Attorney General Steven G. Heckler, all of Columbia, for respondent.


    Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina Docket: 25469
  20. Shealy v. Aiken County (2000)

    Albert B. Shealy ("Shealy") appeals the Court of Appeals' decision denying workers' compensation benefits for his psychological injuries allegedly caused by conditions of his employment as a "deep cover" undercover narcotics agent for the Aiken County Sheriffs Department ("Sheriffs Department").


    Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina Docket: 25173

1 of 975 Page(s)

Page:
  1. 2
  2. 3
  3. 4
  4. 5